Talk:William Pūnohu White/GA1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am giving this article a review for possible GA status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 05:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
When I first read the article I thought the lead section was too long. I think my main issue is that it almost seems too detailed to me but that is a matter of editorial discretion and opinions can differ. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure it is fine unless you have any recommended trimmings?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everything resolved. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Well-researched, nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
The refs that lead to "ulukau.org" are problematic. When I ran Checklinks the results for "The Hawaiian Kingdom" and for Guide to Newspapers of Hawaii came back with "Forbidden" results... Not sure what that particular result specifcally means but I do know the refs need to be fixed. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link to http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgi-bin/library?c=newsguide for the Guide but I don't any problem with the Hawaiian Kingdom source http://www.ulukau.org/elib/cgi-bin/library?c=kingdom3&l=en . KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can you see my comments below? Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All referencing issues have been resolved. The ulukau refs lead to a general book linkage and the pages can be individually accessed from there. Check links just doesn't quite get the finer points of this reference. No problems found. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool, clean as a whistle. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
I think the article balances the different aspects without devolving in to a POV/screed. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Tags/permissions are all good to go. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Nicely-done on the images. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Need to do a couple more read-throughs for possible errors etc. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.The article seems to be undergoing a spate of recent edits/deletions/etc - I am putting my Review on hold for a few days to make sure that the article is stable. Shearonink (talk) 03:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My Review is complete. Thanks to everyone for all their hard work. Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiakea

The extensive quote-paragraph that starts with "Kaiakea was a political advisor in the time of Kamehameha..." seems out of place. It's about a different person, not the subject of the article. It should be pared-down. Shearonink (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink I removed the blockquotes and just quoted the ending few sentences. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I have been re-reading the article and some of the phrasing in the lead isn't quite clear. I think what it is saying is that, especially in the matter of White's speech (in the Overthrow section), is that history-books have been relying on transliterations of the man's words and that what he actually said, in the original Hawaiian, is unknown - also that history is written by the victors with White being portrayed as some kind of violent loose cannon. But what the lead actually states is "...largely because of a reliance on English-language sources to write Hawaiian history." I think the lead would benefit from being slightly re-phrased somehow... maybe "a reliance on anti-Royalist..." or "pro-United States..." English-language sources..something along those lines. Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ulukau

If you use the Checklinks tool and look at the results, you'll see what I mean: Checklinks. These refs link to the general book-link itself but I think it would be more useful for the ref to link straight to the actual information, like this: Ahailono O Hawaii, Ka (Herald of Hawaii) Perhaps I am wrong in this matter but I am finding the way these refs are presently constructed as being slightly problematic for verifiability purposes. I was trying to reach the end of Ref #17 and couldn't quite figure out what/where the verifying information is. Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS - There have been a lot of edits on the article tonight, my comments above might be somewhat out-of-date. Shearonink (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree since it is literally sighting the book and the links lead to the entire book which can then be accessed page by page. For example I often use the Kuykendall sources in other articles and if I were to separate each page/chapter reference and have to link it like the way you suggest it would be really problematic. I don't understand what the problem is Checklinks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: As for Ref #17, I think you may be having trouble verifying "the missionary" bit. That was an after thought I added to explain what the Reform Party was based on what is commonly known about Hawaiian history. I will add another citation after that to citing that particular part. Google is down for me right now, will add it once I can find it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

@KAVEBEAR: Thanks to all the editors who have worked on improving this article since I started this Review - it is now much different than when I started. I will need to do several more read-throughs to make sure that 1)all the previous concerns I had have been dealt with and 2)the present version has no additional/new issues. Please bear with me as I go through this process - it will probably take me several days. Any possible new issues that I come upon will be posted below this section. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This article has been through a lot of recent editing and improvements. Kudos to all the contributing editors. I am going to do one last close/readthrough for any possible issues that I might have missed and then will be able to finish up my Review. Shearonink (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@KAVEBEAR: Ok, yes...I really do read through these article closely several times. I did so and found one last worrisome issue. As soon as this is taken care of, I will be able to finish up my GA Review for this article. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prorogue

"The legislative assembly was prorogued..." There needs to be some linkage to better explain this term. I doubt most of Wikipedia's readers will know what the term "prorogue" means (I know I didn't until I looked it up). Probably the best way would be to Wikilink one of two ways:

internally to Wiktionary as in the following: [[wikt:definition|]] which if it was linked to Wiktionary for this term would be coded like this: [[wikt:prorogue#Verb|prorogue]] which would look like this to the reader: prorogue or to
link to the United States subsection in Wikipedia article on prorogation: [[Legislative_session#Procedure_in_the_United_States|prorogue]] which would give this result: prorogue.

It seems to me either linkage would be ok for a reader to look up what "prorogue" means. The direct Wiktionary linkage would be my first preference if I could figure out how to drill-down to the #3 definition of "(transitive) To suspend (a parliamentary session) or to discontinue the meetings of (an assembly, parliament etc.) without formally ending the session."... If you can figure out how to do that, yay! and more power to you. Barring being able to link to that #3, when I put in the term "Prorogued" into the Wikipedia internal search, what I come up with is being directed to the Wikipedia article Legislative_session so that would work as a definition-link too. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: I like the first suggestion. Done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good to go then. Congrats, it's a Good Article. Shearonink (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.